Prenatal Testing

As science and technology has advanced, the number and complexity of bioethical issues seems to have increased. At times, science and technology have progressed at such a rapid pace that society in general and governmental entities in particular have not been prepared to address the public policy questions that accompany the ethical dilemmas created. During my "legal and ethical aspects of health information management" class that I am currently taking , a heated discussion occurred about prenatal testing. Hence, I have selected to write about this contemporary socially relevant issue of choosing to have prenatal testing by pregnant women.

This issue has also been recently highlighted, when it was brought to attention in national media by Rick Santorum, a devout catholic , conservative and a republican candidate during campaigning for presidential primary cycle. Rick has made his disapproval for screenings for birth defects as a part of his attack against the current president's administration. As a liberal NewYorker and a woman I would like to advocate for a woman's right to choice. It should be up to an individual woman to opt for screenings for birth defects based on her religious, cultural or personal beliefs. I certainly don't want a bureaucrat or a politician to stifle my decision making in this matter !

The opponents such as , Rick Santorum, are simply against prenatal testing and feel that it creates anxiety due to the results. They argue that, Just because the unborn baby must have a genetic mutation, doesn't mean the baby will definitely have an issue. Others feel that aborting a baby, regardless of their potential of being born with genetic abnormalities, is simply not right. Various religious groups believe that no human has this power. Another opposition of prenatal genetic testing is the cost. This testing is very expensive and not all insurance companies are prepared to cover the costs. One of the more controversial elements associated with testing involves those individuals that advocate this type of testing in order to identify unborn babies that do have severe genetic defects. The theory is that if these babies can be identified, if babies that have no hope of a so-called "normal existence" can be identified before they are born, the pregnancy can be terminated in order to avoid a great deal of suffering all around. Again, this is a controversial position, a position that is subject to much debate.

While researching on this issue I came across a startling statistics such as , of 22,000 women who received prenatal diagnosis in one 1990 study in Canada, 88 percent of those who found they were carrying a child with Down Syndrome aborted the fetus. Other studies have put the rate of Down Syndrome abortions at about 90 percent, some even higher. Overwhelmingly, statistics reveal that a very small percentage of couples continue pregnancies after a diagnosis of Down syndrome through prenatal testing. Critics argue that, these statistics are mainly the result of decisions made in haste and without adequate information about what Down syndrome is likely to mean for the child or even to themselves as parents.

Some critics argue prenatal testing as a a form of Eugenics, which refers to the effort to improve the human species through control of hereditary factors in mating. In his criticism of prenatal testing Santorum said, "Free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions